I see everyone bashing this lady, and I will be the first to admit that I have not kept up with this story very closely, so someone fill me in if I am missing something.

 

What I understand so far is that this lady does not believe in same sex marriages based on her religious beliefs and ideologies and because of that refuses to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples. Am I missing anything else?

 

If this is what the whole story is based on, I don't think it is right for anyone to bash her. If I am missing something, let me know. She believes that same sex marriages are wrong and will not bend on her beliefs. Should she be removed from that position? I would say yes. Does this make her a disgusting human? Not at all.

 

AGAIN, PLEASE FILL ME IN IF I AM MISSING SOMETHING THAT SHE HAS DONE TO MAKE HERSELF LOOK WORSE.

 

You're right to a point.

 

What is missing is that the SCOTUS ruled that she did NOT have the right to refuse issuing a license.

 

So the part that is missing is she is breaking the law.

 

I agree that this does not make her a "disgusting human being." Just in the wrong career.

I see everyone bashing this lady, and I will be the first to admit that I have not kept up with this story very closely, so someone fill me in if I am missing something.

 

What I understand so far is that this lady does not believe in same sex marriages based on her religious beliefs and ideologies and because of that refuses to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples. Am I missing anything else?

 

If this is what the whole story is based on, I don't think it is right for anyone to bash her. If I am missing something, let me know. She believes that same sex marriages are wrong and will not bend on her beliefs. Should she be removed from that position? I would say yes. Does this make her a disgusting human? Not at all.

 

AGAIN, PLEASE FILL ME IN IF I AM MISSING SOMETHING THAT SHE HAS DONE TO MAKE HERSELF LOOK WORSE.

 

That is it in a nutshell.

 

Basically, a critical function of her elected position is to perform X, Y, and Z duties. She is refusing to perform duty X because of her religious convictions; thus, she is defiantly breaking the law.

This whole thing is so embarrassing.

That is it in a nutshell.

 

Basically, a critical function of her elected position is to perform X, Y, and Z duties. She is refusing to perform duty X because of her religious convictions.

 

I totally understand that, which is why I said she should probably be replaced at that position. To call this woman a terrible, disgusting human being is simply wrong and makes us no better than this woman, IMO. She believes that it is wrong and will not promote it. Fire her! Don't judge her because that makes you no better. (not you particularly)

I totally understand that, which is why I said she should probably be replaced at that position. To call this woman a terrible, disgusting human being is simply wrong and makes us no better than this woman, IMO. She believes that it is wrong and will not promote it. Fire her! Don't judge her because that makes you no better. (not you particularly)

 

The added outrage comes from the fact she is elected. By nature elected officials should be held to a higher standard... a standard by which she is not upholding. You can't just walk in and fire her Donald Trump style.

The added outrage comes from the fact she is elected. By nature elected officials should be held to a higher standard... a standard by which she is not upholding. You can't just walk in and fire her Donald Trump style.

 

In a way, you can. She is now breaking the law, according to the SCOTUS, so hold her in contempt, put her in jail, and then "impeach" her or whatever needs to be done. I am all for that, I just think people on here are wrong and are acting no better than what they are complaining about with her when you condemn her and say she is terrible, worthless, disgusting, blah blah blah.

 

I don't understand how someone is disgusting by standing firm to their religious beliefs. If it isn't what you believe that doesn't make her a bad person, it means you have different views. I get that she is an elected official and should be held to a higher standard and church and state are different, etc. which is why I said take the steps to remove her and let it stop there.

But I do agree the name calling - and I have seen some horrible things written about her, especially on social media - does nothing but bring you down to that level.

What about those people who think that anyone who gets a divorce should be stoned to death? Should they head to Rowan now and follow their religious liberties and manifest their faith?

 

There are Christians out there who think that women have no authority not only over their husband, but any male. Should they start heading to Rowan as well? I mean, it is their religious liberty and they are able to manifest their faith.

 

Why do they need to go to Rowan County? And what gives you the right to say they are "wrong"? Do I believe those things you stated, no. But you better believe I am not going to judge them for what they believe. This is the whole problem. You have a different belief, view, or no belief at all which is fine. But you are not any better nor are they any worse than you and to think so is just as bad.

 

Why can't we accept that she feels the way she does, agree or disagree with it, and discuss it? Why do we have to "throw stones" at her?

 

Again, not pointing anyone out specifically just overall as a society

Seems to me an impeachment or whatever you call it would be cheaper for the county than what this is going to cost it long term if she continues down this path.

I wonder if she'd agree to a major network interview if asked to give one?

 

Katie Couric has already interviewed one of the gay couples denied a license.

I wonder if she'd agree to a major network interview if asked to give one?

 

Probably so. If there is anything I have learned in America it is that people love the limelight and their 15 minutes. And the media loves to prop these people as tomato targets.

To those people that said..."what is wrong with same sex wanting to get married? It does not effect you."

 

Well, here is your first answer in real life.

 

The loss of religious liberty.

 

There is no longer a right to follow your heart and convictions, and LIVE OUT your faith and religion?

 

That does effect me and countless born again Christians that have a heart to follow God and honor him.

 

I never thought I would live to see the day in America where a Christian is so persecuted, possibly put in jail, and even given death threats for manifesting their faith.

 

Well here we are. On the heels of the supreme court ruling, religious liberties are sucked away.

 

Have a nice day all...Lord bless you! I have to go to work.

 

Where have her rights been impeded? She has the right to express, live and worship her faith as she chooses.

 

She does not have the right to interpret civil law in this country for her self or her constituencies.

 

BTW, if the problem is that she disagrees with this lifestyle because it goes against scripture (and I don't disagree with her there), why not apply Paul's axiom on not being "unequally yolked" in marriage. (i.e. believer to a non-believer).

 

The truth is that Mrs. Davis has been saved by the grace of God. The same grace she can not see being an option to and for others. Sorry. I just don't see it you way 777.

She might even get herself a brand spanking new husband...:wacky:

 

What people do behind closed doors is no business of mine.

Why do they need to go to Rowan County? And what gives you the right to say they are "wrong"? Do I believe those things you stated, no. But you better believe I am not going to judge them for what they believe. This is the whole problem. You have a different belief, view, or no belief at all which is fine. But you are not any better nor are they any worse than you and to think so is just as bad.

 

Why can't we accept that she feels the way she does, agree or disagree with it, and discuss it? Why do we have to "throw stones" at her?

 

Again, not pointing anyone out specifically just overall as a society

 

You raise an excellent point in the discussion. However I would also add that Mrs. Davis seems unwilling to accept the others in her county that feel differently than she does.

The thing I hate is that she's continually banged her own drum about what a good job she's done in her position. Yet, her position was to serve ALL of the people. She's a paid servant. I wish she'd just resign, but that ship has sailed if she even ever thought about it to begin with. And do something with that hair. Locks of love would be a good idea.